A Florida court has reversed a summary judgment in favor of The Berry Farm, LLC, in a negligence case involving Amanda Miguel Collado Laguna, who suffered injuries while using a slide at the farm's playground. The case, filed under docket number 3D2025-1982, centers around whether the farm was liable for Collado's injuries and whether it complied with necessary safety regulations.

The decision is significant as it highlights the responsibilities of agritourism operators regarding safety measures and the importance of clear signage to inform visitors of potential risks. Collado's case raises questions about liability in recreational settings, especially for businesses that operate in the agritourism sector.

Background

Amanda Miguel Collado Laguna visited The Berry Farm in Miami on October 10, 2021, to attend its annual Harvest Festival with her young son. During her visit, she fractured her right ankle after using a slide in the children’s playground area. Following the incident, Collado filed a negligence lawsuit against The Berry Farm, claiming that the farm failed to maintain safe conditions and did not adequately warn visitors about the dangers associated with the slide.

In her complaint, Collado alleged that The Berry Farm had a duty to ensure the safety of its playground equipment and to inform visitors of any potential hazards. The farm, however, responded by asserting that it was immune from liability under Florida's agritourism laws, specifically citing section 570.88(1) of the Florida Statutes, which provides certain protections for agritourism operators.

The Ruling

The trial court initially granted summary judgment in favor of The Berry Farm, concluding that the farm was protected from liability due to its compliance with the notice requirements outlined in section 570.89 of the Florida Statutes. The court found that the owner of The Berry Farm, Karl Wiegandt, had provided an affidavit stating that warning signs were posted at the entrance and near the playground area, thereby fulfilling the legal requirements for agritourism operators.

The court ruled, "Collado presented no admissible evidence showing that such signs were not posted on the date of the incident."

However, Collado contested this ruling, arguing that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the required signs were actually posted on the day of her injury. She presented evidence, including her own deposition testimony stating that she did not see any warning signs, as well as discrepancies in the dates of the photographs submitted by The Berry Farm to support its claims.

Upon review, the appellate court determined that the trial court had erred in granting summary judgment. The judges highlighted that credibility determinations should be made by a jury, not by a judge during summary judgment proceedings. The court emphasized that Collado's testimony raised sufficient doubt about the presence of the warning signs, which was crucial for determining whether The Berry Farm could claim immunity under the agritourism statutes.

Impact

The appellate court's decision to reverse the summary judgment has important implications for agritourism operators in Florida. It underscores the necessity for businesses to not only post warning signs but also to ensure that they are visible and present at the time of an incident. The ruling reinforces the idea that liability protections for agritourism operators are contingent upon their adherence to safety regulations.

This case may set a precedent for future negligence claims against agritourism businesses, particularly in how courts evaluate compliance with safety requirements and the credibility of evidence presented by both parties. It serves as a reminder that businesses must take proactive steps to ensure the safety of their premises, especially in recreational areas.

What's Next

The case has been remanded for further proceedings, allowing Collado's claims to be heard in court. It remains to be seen whether The Berry Farm will seek to appeal the appellate court's decision or if additional related cases will arise as a result of this ruling.